For me I liked Kubrick's shining better than the book. Before you start a mob let me explain.

I liked the idea that the ghost aspect was more ambiguous while int he book it's very point blank, IMO it makes the film scarier when your unsure if what your seeing is a haunting or 3 people coming face to face with their own personal psychosis.

Also Of Mice and Men the Malkovich version, Both him and Gary Sinise really put forth such a great job tat I connect more with their characters than in the book.

For me I liked Kubrick's shining better than the book. Before you start a mob let me explain.

I liked the idea that the ghost aspect was more ambiguous while int he book it's very point blank, IMO it makes the film scarier when your unsure if what your seeing is a haunting or 3 people coming face to face with their own personal psychosis.

Also Of Mice and Men the Malkovich version, Both him and Gary Sinise really put forth such a great job tat I connect more with their characters than in the book.

I'll back you on the Shinning.

Not to mention that some of the hauntings in the book came across as a bit over the top. In the movie, there's just enough strangeness to let you know something isn't right, but it never clarifies exactly what is really going on.

And the made for TV movie that King did that was supposedly much more faithful to the book, that was simply horrible.

Logged

Terms & Conditions: By reading this signature, you, the reader willfully acknowledge that you owe me a dollar.

Lord of the Rings is another one. I really enjoyed the movies, but reading the books was a chore.

+1 on Lord Of The Rings. I found the books interminably boring, what with Tolkein's many irrelevant digressions. "And as they walked, they sang a hobbit marching song" - cue two pages of idiotic crud that does nothing to advance the plot.

But the movies are magnificent. It's as if Jackson decided to strip out every last hobbit marching song and make LOTR the way it should have been.

Logged

"Many others since have tried & failed at making a watchable parasite slug movie" - LilCerberus

The movie of David Morrell's First Blood is IMO better than the book in some ways - the book was OTT violent, Rambo destroys almost the entire town and kills many people (including the sheriff) while in the film, Rambo doesn't kill anyone (at least, not intentionally) and only one person dies.

I liked the book, though.

Logged

Questions fell but no one stopped to listenThat eternity was just a dawn awayAnd the rest was sure to comeLeaves, caught in winter's ice

I agree with THE SHINING. I liked the movie better. There are topiary animals in the book, not a maze (if I recall correctly). THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is also based on a STEPHEN KING story (a novella, RITA HAYWORTH AND THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION). I reread the original after looking at the film for the umpteenth time, and I was amazed at the wonderful details added to the movie that aren't in the book.

I've watched a few different movie versions (although not the Disney one) and enjoyed them all, but the book is written in such an antiquated style that I felt like I was translating it as much as I was trying to read it.

Stand By Me also suffered from a fairly horrible ending in the book that thankfully, the movie omitted. Stephen King does that sometimes. I just don't think he knows where to end his stories sometimes.

Logged

Terms & Conditions: By reading this signature, you, the reader willfully acknowledge that you owe me a dollar.